Cleaving through groups of enemies like you're cutting wheat is a fairly classic thing for 'high-level' warriors to do. You could probably achieve something similar with the Cleave and Great Cleave feats by letting people take a five-foot step each time they drop an enemy, but the key feature is that it bypasses hit points on enemies that are low enough level. Honestly if there's anything warriors in general and Fighters in particular should be good at it's killing and/or crippling enemies and that's the area where they fall down badly next to the casters. So, yes, no save, be good enough to be a problem or lose.That feat is ridiculous. I like the idea, but it doesn't really close the gap so much as put balance into a tailspin. Mechanically, it's a no-save pretty much die against commoners and the occasional 12th level wizard or 12 HD fae. 11th level samasaran wizards can pull out a no-save lose your turn (irresistible dance), as well as cloudkill, but this particular feat is so strangely specific, especially around BAB, that it's not quite as useful as either. Ok, so you're a fighter, and you can bully commoners and maybe get lucky against a wizard. But your wizard is busy bullying a god.
Still, I like the concept and fluff.
Except it making it BAB based means the starting at level 11 the full BAB dude would insta-kill all 1/2 BAB classes of his level or lower or one above his level depending on evens or odds. People may dislike caster superiority, but that's a push too far back in the opposite direction. Sounds like what you are going for should be HD based.
It's based entirely on combat skill, and BAB is the main measure of that. Basing it on HD is exactly what I don't want to do. It gives a reason for the Wizard to keep that reasonably high level bodyguard close by, or to spend a lot of effort summoning monsters that can stand up to a fighter, because once it gets to close combat they're done, kippered, and...Except it making it BAB based means the starting at level 11 the full BAB dude would insta-kill all 1/2 BAB classes of his level or lower or one above his level depending on evens or odds. People may dislike caster superiority, but that's a push too far back in the opposite direction. Sounds like what you are going for should be HD based.Cleaving through groups of enemies like you're cutting wheat is a fairly classic thing for 'high-level' warriors to do. You could probably achieve something similar with the Cleave and Great Cleave feats by letting people take a five-foot step each time they drop an enemy, but the key feature is that it bypasses hit points on enemies that are low enough level. Honestly if there's anything warriors in general and Fighters in particular should be good at it's killing and/or crippling enemies and that's the area where they fall down badly next to the casters. So, yes, no save, be good enough to be a problem or lose.That feat is ridiculous. I like the idea, but it doesn't really close the gap so much as put balance into a tailspin. Mechanically, it's a no-save pretty much die against commoners and the occasional 12th level wizard or 12 HD fae. 11th level samasaran wizards can pull out a no-save lose your turn (irresistible dance), as well as cloudkill, but this particular feat is so strangely specific, especially around BAB, that it's not quite as useful as either. Ok, so you're a fighter, and you can bully commoners and maybe get lucky against a wizard. But your wizard is busy bullying a god.
Still, I like the concept and fluff.
So that means that mid-high and above level 1/2 caster BBEGs can get 1-shotted by the party fighter, while CR=APL-7 warriors can't. This is not really a mook sweeper. It's a 1/2 BAB sweeper. 3/4BAB classes won't get killed if they are primary combatants and not relatively low level support. Full BAB will never have a problem, even if they are the definition of "Mook". When this ability is in play, the only way a 1/2 BAB boss will survive long enough to be a threat is to rely on either extreme rocket tag or degenerate tactics. I am sure the fighter would still lose horribly if the caster used a wall of zombified or bound outsiders that aren't vulnerable to the fighter's trick, or if the caster ramps up their initiative to the 20s and smacks the party with a Will based high DC/no save SoL. It pretty much forces anyone designing adventures while it is in play to include a couple of things that counter it. If they don't, the adventure breaks because a single PC can kill an entire CR=APL+2 encounter in an archery full attack. If they do, the fighter's feat is almost completely wasted.
Besides, shouldn't we really be dialing down the number of WTFBroken abilities classes can get. Yes, I include caster classes in that. Give the martials useful things, but don't make them 1 shot kill rocket launchers who are essentially impossible to balance around. Being able to spend AoOs on taking free swings on low CR enemies(once each) that can be done while moving would get the mook sweeper effect and help maintain martial mobility, while not snapping balance in half whenever the fighter encounters a 1/2BAB enemy. Make the bonus AoO part of Combat Reflexes something everyone gets so it doesn't become a tax, and make the feat Combat Reflexes give even more AoOs, so the fighter can Falchion down half a dozen mooks in the way of the boss, instead of your suggestion where the fighter runs up to a mook, instagibs them, and then does nothing else. Barring Archery or some other way of bypassing Stand-Still-Or-Suck syndrome, that feat is terrible as a mook sweeper, because against actual mooks the fighter is likely to outright kill one with a falchion swing anyway, and the fighter still has to decide to either sit still or only get one attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's based entirely on combat skill, and BAB is the main measure of that. Basing it on HD is exactly what I don't want to do. It gives a reason for the Wizard to keep that reasonably high level bodyguard close by, or to spend a lot of effort summoning monsters that can stand up to a fighter, because once it gets to close combat they're done, kippered, and toasted.
Thinking about martial arts movies, I might also allow someone with twelve levels of Monk to qualify.
This is why Tome of Battle/Path of War-esque maneuver progression is the best way to handle this. You have to train to get fancy techniques, just like a Wizard has to train to get spells.
|
hmmm Martial's do not seem to have an issue. I play at a table with a barbarian with DR well over 10 who rages and dishes out damage much more consistently and then my wizard. Yes I can dish it out to and would do more on a given round but over all I bet his damage output equals or surpasses mine. Plus with the DR he is the tank, the focus. I do not think there is a balance issue, even at high levels. I have played both and never found it an issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Have you played a Fighter?
And the disparity isn't about DPR output. It's effectiveness outside of hitting things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmmm Martial's do not seem to have an issue. I play at a table with a barbarian with DR well over 10 who rages and dishes out damage much more consistently and then my wizard. Yes I can dish it out to and would do more on a given round but over all I bet his damage output equals or surpasses mine. Plus with the DR he is the tank, the focus. I do not think there is a balance issue, even at high levels. I have played both and never found it an issue.
Unless you are something like a draconic/orc crossblooded sorcerer, you have no business trying to outDPR the barbarian.
Wizards tossing out fireballs is actually one of the worst things they can be doing unless they specialize heavily in doing so. It's when they Stinking Cloud the encounter into complete ineffectualness, Charm the biggest target into being their pet bruiser for the rest of the dungeon, bypass the whole encounter with a well timed Dimension door, or negate the need to even be there in the first place by playing 20 questions with the gods (in the case that they are there for info). The barbarian's ability to affect the world is limited to their charging range, and all they can do is usually only beat 1 target to death at a time. Wizards can neutralize(kill or otherwise render not a threat) a target. They can neutralize a whole bunch of targets. They can negate the need to neutralize this particular set of targets, and they can negate the need to neutralize any targets in the entire area (or even be in the area in the first place), and all they require to achieve this is just intelligent use of their class features as written and no active attempts by the GM to shut down said usage with GM fiat. That's the difference between martials and casters. Martials can wreck single targets, and it isn't hard to stop them from doing that. Caster can wreck anything from a single target to the entire narrative, and it requires insane levels of GM fiat or extensive houseruling to stop them.
It's based entirely on combat skill, and BAB is the main measure of that. Basing it on HD is exactly what I don't want to do. It gives a reason for the Wizard to keep that reasonably high level bodyguard close by, or to spend a lot of effort summoning monsters that can stand up to a fighter, because once it gets to close combat they're done, kippered, and...
I'm still not sure why you think a feat that lets full BAB classes immediately kill all full arcane casters of their level+1 or lower by so sneezing at them is anything but a really bad idea. Pathfinder doesn't need more rocket tag, plus there is the problem of serial escalation. It would pretty much require the DM to play all caster enemies as optimized, ruthless combatants, something which most NPC casters aren't because it would be less fun for the party. Good old scry/fry while the party is sleeping/fighting other enemies, persistent Will based save-or-suck spells, and lots of prep'd uses of Emergency Force Sphere; all necessary for BBEGs now. Also I'm sure your party Wizard is going to like the enemy fighter sneezing at him to trigger the insta-kill, because if you can use it, so can the DM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE NO MORE FEATS! WE NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER NOT MAKE MORE!
One of the fundamental design flaws is that class features are generally a lot more impressive than feats. But almost all of the fighter's class features are: bonus feat.
I see a lot of things that people suggest as feats, and think "that shouldn't be a feat, that should a class feature OR just something any character can do without burning a feat"
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PLEASE NO MORE FEATS! WE NEED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER NOT MAKE MORE!One of the fundamental design flaws is that class features are generally a lot more impressive than feats. But almost all of the fighter's class features are: bonus feat.
I see a lot of things that people suggest as feats, and think "that shouldn't be a feat, that should a class feature OR just something any character can do without burning a feat"
Well, since the problem is that class features are better than feats and the Fighter gets feats as class features, looking at giving him a way to make feats equivalent to class features, or access feats that are innately as good as class features, isn't a bad idea.
The real trick is making sure they aren't easily accessed by everyone creating a scenario where they buff casters equally. That's why hanging them on BAB or a class feature like Bravery is a pretty good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please dont try and peg clerics into.being healers again... There is a reason why no one wanted to play clerics in older editions and the cleric was changed for 3.X....
The cleric should be nerfed down to 1/2 BAB, light armor, and d6 HD. There's no reason it should have the combat ability of a bard with twice the spellcasting power AND access to the best healing magic.
None.
The Inquisitor, being also 3/4 BAB but with a combat spell list, should take over the role of the fighting cleric. If you want a 9 level spellcaster, fighting should NOT be something they are good at.
And I'm also ignoring the warpriest, of course.
Seriously, healing is such an important role and potent force in and of itself, you could have an entire class devoted to it all by its lonesome, and people would still play it, and it would be welcome.
==Aelryinth
Healing is not an important role and it is not a potent force in and of itself; you basically just need someone to have healing spells on their list, no need to actually prepare them. If you really want to do this you already have the Life Oracle filling that niche, anyways.
The Cleric list as it stands currently does not work for a dedicated caster in the early levels, it's designed to buff up and be a martial. It would require a larger rework than a straight nerf to continue to be something people want to play outside of games that start at 8th level or higher.
but you always want con...basing bonuses on stats just leads to more MAD.
If you want to center class bonuses on the fighter's stats, make sure he gets to choose the stat, so it applies to multiple things.
Y'know, like spellcasters get for spells.
==Aelryinth
But now you are forcing major investment into yet another stat for the fighter, so they have enough raw resource to be useful.
Whereas if you made it the stat of the fighter's choice, as a resource pool, it would always be operating off his prime stat, likely str or dex, just like a caster's pool does.
All I'm saying is, treat them equally.
==Aelryinth
as i said before
pf has now 3 divine hybrids and 2 nature themed hybrids
there is simply no more reason for druids and clerics to retain their bab and hd
if you want to play a war cleric there are literally 3 classes that are just that
if you want to play a nature themed martial there are 2 classes that are just thatno reason at all for cleric and druid to retain hd and 3/4 bab
And on the long list of dumb ideas the "Let's Nerf Clerics" one is the most retarded.
You're all forgetting the fundamental truth to the Cleric. His spells are butt. Not all of them of course, but you compare the divine spell list to the arcane spell list and you'll realize that it's pretty bad.
I main clerics and I've learned that trying to be a "Wizard" is a terrible idea, so is trying to be a fighter. The cleric is in a strong place sure but that's not a result of his hit die or bab and taking those away will take away the clerics identity. I believe the best was to balance spell casters is to limit their spell selection. Right now a necromancy focused spell caster can cherry pick from all the other schools with no problem. If a system were devised that limited their ability to choose spells it would make a world of difference by itself.
Plus buffing martials would be awesome. I'm rather have awesome martials over poopy clerics.
What's your definition of 'poopy cleric'?
The same cleric that would still be a Tier 1 class BECAUSE it had full access to the cleric spell list, and full casting?I agree with you that nerfage of spell selection would go towards reining in casters. But that goes for clerics, too, because clerics have full access to the whole list, which wizards have to spend some serious gold to also enjoy.
And yes, the best wizard spells are better then the average cleric spells. However, the best cleric spells are top-notch, and often ARE those same wizard spells, gained via Domains.
So, cleric nerfage is a thing. Giving up BAB, HD and armor will barely do ANYTHING to them, except make it harder for them to perform the front line combat role.
Which is a GOOD thing. They can still be blaster, healer, summoner, charmer, scout without any difficulty, and return to being a tank with a little more difficulty...they've still got the spells for it.
==Aelryinth
but you always want con...basing bonuses on stats just leads to more MAD.
If you want to center class bonuses on the fighter's stats, make sure he gets to choose the stat, so it applies to multiple things.
Y'know, like spellcasters get for spells.
==Aelryinth
But now you are forcing major investment into yet another stat for the fighter, so they have enough raw resource to be useful.
Whereas if you made it the stat of the fighter's choice, as a resource pool, it would always be operating off his prime stat, likely str or dex, just like a caster's pool does.
All I'm saying is, treat them equally.
==Aelryinth
maybe give each martial a sort of charmed life procing off of a good stat for their class that's physical. swap swashbuckler's to dex. fighter's to con or str, hmm.
There is an archetpye of the cleric that tries to mke them cadty and it kinda falls flat... if the cleric had more spells like blasty smiting and lock down spells then we may get somewhere
I agree that the cleric spell list isn't terribly exciting at low levels, but that could be solved by adding some low-impact class features in place of the stuff they lose. Making Channel more interesting would give them added incentive to invest in charisma, for example. Maybe the low-BAB clerics can Chastise, using channel charges to deliver a flamestrike-like blast for example. It might also help clerics feel a bit less... Well, bland.
Life oracle does good job of being a Caster that Heals Well.
It fails at being a healer in my book.
Could you elaborate on why and how you think the life oracle fails at being a healer?
The cleric is Tier 1 because he's a full 9 level caster. Full Stop. That's it, right there.
Sure, it seems he's lacking compared to ALL of the wizard spells. But he gets to pick the BEST of those spells with his domains, AND have great level 9's, plus the best personal and group buffing spells, + the best healing/recovery, all at once.
If he wants to buff to it, just like the wizard, he can be a front liner. The wizard will generally use polymorph effects, the cleric will use GMW, GMV, Divine Might, Divine Power, Divine Favor, etc. Bang, right back up front.
Like the wizard, his HD and BAB are not essential for Tier 1. Tier 1 is about affecting the narrative. Just straight combat ability is superfluous to that standard.
Ditto the druid. His wildshaping ability is just a different form of combat/movement buff. The strength from it subs for any BAB difference, he isn't worried about his armor, either. He gets 9 levels of spells that can be extremely powerful, the versatility of wildshape, recovery spells, and he's a full caster with full access to the whole spell list for druids.
He's tier 1. BAB, HD and armor simply aren't factors. You'll take away his easy tankiness, but that's a role for warpriests, inquisitors and paladins, anyways. He does not NEED that role. And yet, if he wants it back, he can just buff to it.
==Aelryinth
I agree that the cleric spell list isn't terribly exciting at low levels, but that could be solved by adding some low-impact class features in place of the stuff they lose. Making Channel more interesting would give them added incentive to invest in charisma, for example. Maybe the low-BAB clerics can Chastise, using channel charges to deliver a flamestrike-like blast for example. It might also help clerics feel a bit less... Well, bland.
Could you elaborate on why and how you think the life oracle fails at being a healer?Life oracle does good job of being a Caster that Heals Well.
It fails at being a healer in my book.
I'm guessing that because a spontaneous healer doesn't have access to ALL the healing/recovery options that are possible that a prepared caster does.
That, and no form of unlimited healing, however slow.
There's a Psionics class from Dreamscarred that focuses on pre-emptive healing that's counter-intuitive, but very effective at the role.
There was another psionics class from 3e that implanted jewels in themselves and got fast healing, could transfer wounds from others and heal them away on themselves, slowly.
==Aelryinth
The fighter should have monk saving throws and 4 attacks at level 20 with no penalty to hit so none of this +20/+15/+10/+5 malarky. 3E and PF are the only "D&D" that punishes multiple attacks to that extent.
Spell DCs need to be dragged down as well. Let monsters use fighter saves. At high levels if you have a 5-25% chance of landing a save or suck the damage dealing spells look a whoe lot better.
Dumping wands of CLW also makes CoDzilla make some hard choices between casting spells and healing. That limits their power as well.Narrow the skill points difference between classes would help. 4-6 skill points for most classes, wizards can have 2.
Pathfinder is still suffering from some of the changes they made from 2E to 3E.
I repeat, the cleric spell list is not weak. It's nine levels of fun and bouncy-bouncy power. Oh, sure, it's not got the pure utility of the wizard. But it's not WEAK. And wizards can't do recovery or heal.
Yes, a Shapechanged Wizard can be a front-liner if they want to. Even in PF. All the time, all day? No. But for certain fights for short periods? Easily. There was someone here who had a fighting wizard with a Google link to it, and all his favorite combat forms. Transmuter/14 or something. Quite effective in a fight. you do know how dangerous some elemental and draconic Form of Spells can be, right?
yes, a buffed cleric can easily match up against an unbuffed fighter and hold his own, even with 1/2 BAB. That's a lot of buffing coming down the pike the fighter doesn't really have an answer to. Sure, if the fighter is ALSO buffed, the fighter pulls ahead. But we're talking the cleric doing the fighter's job, with no fighter around. he WILL be able to tank, if he wants to. The fighter still can't cast CSW or Air Walk.
Even more fun, they can Summon in help to do the fighter's job. Remember, folks, damage infliction is only a small portion of what is needed in combat!
Remember, if the cleric is buffing himself, his armor and his weapons, that's money he doesn't need to spend on +'s. At level 10, all his stuff is +3. Sure, he can't cut cold iron/silver, unless using a weapon. But he could also have a +1 Holy Weapon, where the fighter has a +3. One GMW, and the cleric's is now a +3 Holy Weapon. One casting of Divine Might at level 10, and he's +4 th/dmg. ONe casting of Righteous Might, and he's got another +2 Th/dmg, AC, some DR, a bigger weapon with reach. So, with 3 spells, he's picked up +8 th/+8 dmg, +2d6 Holy dmg, + possibly disrupting weapon, and has some DR/alignment, + weapon a size larger, and gets an extra attack/round. Oh, and let's not forget the +3 hp/level, either, right?
From being down 5 points on BAB, he's basically on a par with a fighter and weapon training of equal level. Add in Power Attack, and he's fine, able to tank to his heart's content.
That's why those spells exist, after all. Now, if you start with BAB 3 higher, and one more iterative, it gets even more lopsided looking.
And there's nothing that says a buffing cleric has to have a low strength score, either. Note that a simple level 1 divine Favor takes care of poor BAB until level 5.
Like I said, clerics don't need good BAB, HD, or hit points. Full Tier spellcasting gives it right back to them if they are so inclined to use it.
==Aelryinth
The fighter should have monk saving throws and 4 attacks at level 20 with no penalty to hit so none of this +20/+15/+10/+5 malarky. 3E and PF are the only "D&D" that punishes multiple attacks to that extent.
Spell DCs need to be dragged down as well. Let monsters use fighter saves. At high levels if you have a 5-25% chance of landing a save or suck the damage dealing spells look a whoe lot better.
Dumping wands of CLW also makes CoDzilla make some hard choices between casting spells and healing. That limits their power as well.Narrow the skill points difference between classes would help. 4-6 skill points for most classes, wizards can have 2.
Pathfinder is still suffering from some of the changes they made from 2E to 3E.
4 attacks, no decreasing is a huge, HUGE damage buff. As it stands, the current situation is about equal to 250% dmg, because the lesser attacks don't hit as often. If you're going to go full + bonus, you'll need to shrink the # of attacks back to earlier editions, too.
Fighters absolutely need better defenses, particularly on saves. restricting skill points returns value to them, restricting CHOICES of skills, does, as well.
I absolutely believe multiple attacks should be a class feature, not a function of BAB, and that includes monster hit dice. It actually removes a design constraint...if I want an Eblis to have 4 at/rd and 3 hd, I can do it without giving it multiple limbs.
==Aelryinth
The fighter should have monk saving throws and 4 attacks at level 20 with no penalty to hit so none of this +20/+15/+10/+5 malarky. 3E and PF are the only "D&D" that punishes multiple attacks to that extent.
Spell DCs need to be dragged down as well. Let monsters use fighter saves. At high levels if you have a 5-25% chance of landing a save or suck the damage dealing spells look a whoe lot better.
Dumping wands of CLW also makes CoDzilla make some hard choices between casting spells and healing. That limits their power as well.Narrow the skill points difference between classes would help. 4-6 skill points for most classes, wizards can have 2.
Pathfinder is still suffering from some of the changes they made from 2E to 3E.
4 attacks, no decreasing is a huge, HUGE damage buff. As it stands, the current situation is about equal to 250% dmg, because the lesser attacks don't hit as often. If you're going to go full + bonus, you'll need to shrink the # of attacks back to earlier editions, too.
Fighters absolutely need better defenses, particularly on saves. restricting skill points returns value to them, restricting CHOICES of skills, does, as well.
I absolutely believe multiple attacks should be a class feature, not a function of BAB, and that includes monster hit dice. It actually removes a design constraint...if I want an Eblis to have 4 at/rd and 3 hd, I can do it without giving it multiple limbs.
==Aelryinth
High level AD&D fighters could exceed 4 attacks a round. The culprit in Pathfinder/3E is the amount of damage you can do especially with two handed weapons which triple dip on larger damage dice, +50-100% strength bonus damage and the critical hit multipliers.
5E has its problems but they did do some of this to fix fighters. Fighter multiple attacks at no penalty would not work under the current version of the rules but its the prime culprit for martials kind of sucking. Spell DCs and the relation to saving throws being the otherprime culprit hence why people say damage spells suck. They did not suck in AD&D but they do in 3E/PF due to hit point bloat and DCs.
|
|
Whenever I hear people say that casters are way more powerful than martial characters, I always ask them if they use all the lesser known rules put into the game to help with that disparity.
Do you force concentration checks for environmental conditions like high wind? Do you track material components? Do your intelligent enemies make good use of the initiative system, readying/delaying their actions to hit casters when they try to cast? Did you remember that a caster has to be able to communicate with a summoned creature to give it complex instructions (no summoning a wolf and telling it to go down a corridor looking for traps or telling it to sunder an enemy's weapon). Do your enemy spellcasters actually counterspell, especially when they know Captain Caster and Company are about to barge into their dungeon? These are just the tip of the iceberg, too. Do you track of the number of pages in spellbooks, toss in a few enemies that are familiar with summoners/eidolons and how to exploit their unique vulnerabilities, and remember that your cleric's divine focus is probably an actual holy symbol that requires a free hand to use? What about how cover gives Reflex save bonuses against burst spells?
Nine times out of ten, the answer to most of these questions is: "No, because those are all annoying rules that slow the game down or are so situational that we usually forget about them." Well, guess what? If you let your casters get away with murder, that's exactly what they're going to do in your game.
Now, as for the versatility disparity, here's another anecdote: More often than not, when I have a martial player character complaining that he can't do as many things or contribute in as many ways as a caster, I look at his character sheet. So, max Strength and/or Dexterity and dumped mental stats, huh? Hmm, every single feat you've taken is focused on doing as much damage as possible. Where are your skill points? Oh, acrobatics and perception, okay. Traits? Yeah, that's what I thought: stray +1 bonuses here and there to attack and damage rolls. If you wanted versatility, why did you min-max your character for DPR? The last time I played a fighter, I blew three feats on the Fast-Learner, Improvisation, and Improved Improvisation feat chain. Surprise! My 3-skill-points-per-level meat shield now has a +4 bonus on all skills he doesn't have ranks in (which is A LOT when you're a fighter) and can attempt them all untrained! Combine that with a backpack full of every kit, tool, and special arrow he can carry and he became a Swiss army knife, except one of the tools he had was a vital striking adamantine greatsword!
TL;DR: There are rules in place to help the martial/caster power disparity. If you're really worried about it, use them in your game. If you want versatile characters, stop building them to be myopic killing machines and invest some feats and/or skill points in non-combat stuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I hear people say that casters are way more powerful than martial characters, I always ask them if they use all the lesser known rules put into the game to help with that disparity.
Do you force concentration checks for environmental conditions like high wind? Do you track material components? Do your intelligent enemies make good use of the initiative system, readying/delaying their actions to hit casters when they try to cast? Did you remember that a caster has to be able to communicate with a summoned creature to give it complex instructions (no summoning a wolf and telling it to go down a corridor looking for traps or telling it to sunder an enemy's weapon). Do your enemy spellcasters actually counterspell, especially when they know Captain Caster and Company are about to barge into their dungeon? These are just the tip of the iceberg, too. Do you track of the number of pages in spellbooks, toss in a few enemies that are familiar with summoners/eidolons and how to exploit their unique vulnerabilities, and remember that your cleric's divine focus is probably an actual holy symbol that requires a free hand to use? What about how cover gives Reflex save bonuses against burst spells?
1. Concentration check DCs are largely trivial after a couple levels outside of the ones for being grappled.
2. If you have a spell component pouch you have all non-costly material components so there is very little that needs tracked.
3. Not taking your full attack in order to get a single attack that maybe stops a spell that you don't necessarily know is coming isn't really a very good tactic and at most is going to work once in an encounter barring terrain advantage on your end.
4. I don't know about telling a wolf to sunder a weapon, but you don't tell a wolf "to look for traps" you tell it to "run that way" and the trapfinding takes care of itself. I can see your point here, but I have never seen anyone actually try to give complex commands to summoned animals.
5. Counterspelling is 100% always a horrible idea unless you can immediate action counter like an Arcanist; you are wasting your turn (where you could be casting the battle winning spell that you are trying to stop!) to maybe do something. If you mean use Dispel/Greater Dispel to pop buffs, then but of course.
6. Spell books are dirt cheap. Counting pages is pretty much a a pointless endeavor as there is little difference between having one tome and two in your bag/extradimensional space/demiplane.
7. I'm assuming by unique weakness you mean Protection from.../Magic Circle; it comes up from time to time.
8. Never enforced that as all it would do is mean that everyone would spend the handful of gold to get a holy symbol tattoo and negate the problem. Enforcing it just forced you into a particular flavor that everyone might not like.
9. I tend to forget about cover bonuses to reflex, but I feel it very rarely comes up, at least in games I've ran/played in. I really should try to remember it though.
...The fighter should have monk saving throws and 4 attacks at level 20 with no penalty to hit so none of this +20/+15/+10/+5 malarky. 3E and PF are the only "D&D" that punishes multiple attacks to that extent.
Spell DCs need to be dragged down as well. Let monsters use fighter saves. At high levels if you have a 5-25% chance of landing a save or suck the damage dealing spells look a whoe lot better.
Dumping wands of CLW also makes CoDzilla make some hard choices between casting spells and healing. That limits their power as well.Narrow the skill points difference between classes would help. 4-6 skill points for most classes, wizards can have 2.
Pathfinder is still suffering from some of the changes they made from 2E to 3E.
4 attacks, no decreasing is a huge, HUGE damage buff. As it stands, the current situation is about equal to 250% dmg, because the lesser attacks don't hit as often. If you're going to go full + bonus, you'll need to shrink the # of attacks back to earlier editions, too.
Fighters absolutely need better defenses, particularly on saves. restricting skill points returns value to them, restricting CHOICES of skills, does, as well.
I absolutely believe multiple attacks should be a class feature, not a function of BAB, and that includes monster hit dice. It actually removes a design constraint...if I want an Eblis to have 4 at/rd and 3 hd, I can do it without giving it multiple limbs.
==Aelryinth
High level AD&D fighters could exceed 4 attacks a round. The culprit in Pathfinder/3E is the amount of damage you can do especially with two handed weapons which triple dip on larger damage dice, +50-100% strength bonus damage and the critical hit multipliers.
5E has its problems but they did do some of this to fix fighters. Fighter multiple attacks at no penalty would not work under the current version of the rules but its the prime culprit for martials kind of sucking. Spell DCs and the relation
I have played 5E, 2E and Castles and Crusades recently. For all the benefits 3.0 made the 3E/PF suystem of multiple attacks really seems ass backwards and thats using rulebooks printed in 1989 or even 1977.
At the time I thought 3.0 was amazing. In hindsight not all of the changes were good. Just let martials move and full attack at no penalty. I do not really regard any version of D&D as the be all and end all of D&D and 3.X is the only version of the rules to do so. Its out right stupid IMHO.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR: There are rules in place to help the martial/caster power disparity. If you're really worried about it, use them in your game. If you want versatile characters, stop building them to be myopic killing machines and invest some feats and/or skill points in non-combat stuff.
So to rein casters in from godlike to just really overpowered you just have to remember to use all of the convoluted rules centered around spellcasting until they reach midlevels and literally all of those things are easily overcome. Got it.
TL;DR: There are rules in place to help the martial/caster power disparity. If you're really worried about it, use them in your game. If you want versatile characters, stop building them to be myopic killing machines and invest some feats and/or skill points in non-combat stuff.So to rein casters in from godlike to just really overpowered you just have to remember to use all of the convoluted rules centered around spellcasting until they reach midlevels and literally all of those things are easily overcome. Got it.
Also spend all your non-fighter bonus feats on Skill Foci so that you can be less incompetent, but still woefully incompetent, with skills.
|
|
1. Concentration check DCs are largely trivial after a couple levels outside of the ones for being grappled.
Yes, but it still has to be made. Ever wonder why arcane casters don't like to wear even just padded armor? What's the big deal, it's just a 5% chance. What are the odds it'll ruin a spell at exactly the wrong moment?
2. If you have a spell component pouch you have all non-costly material components so there is very little that needs tracked.
Ha, nice! Now your wizard is waving around a fragile, non-magical item that can be sundered, stolen, disarmed, or burned. Thanks for showing everyone on the battlefield your own personal Death Star exhaust port, Mr. Wizard. While you're at it, why don't you show everyone your arcane bond weapon, too. Hope nobody thinks to sunder it.
3. Not taking your full attack in order to get a single attack that maybe stops a spell that you don't necessarily know is coming isn't really a very good tactic and at most is going to work once in an encounter barring terrain advantage on your end.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Readying an action to shoot an enemy caster isn't what big bad enemy bosses do. That's what henchmen are for!
4. I don't know about telling a wolf to sunder a weapon, but you don't tell a wolf "to look for traps" you tell it to "run that way" and the trapfinding takes care of itself. I can see your point here, but I have never seen anyone actually try to give complex commands to summoned animals.
Nope, can't even do that. Read summon monster again. Without specific verbal commands in a language they understand (or some ability to speak with animals), all a summoned creature will do is "attack your opponents to the best of its ability."
5. Counterspelling is 100% always a horrible idea unless you can immediate action counter like an Arcanist; you are wasting your turn (where you could be casting the battle winning spell that you are trying to stop!) to maybe do something. If you mean use Dispel/Greater Dispel to pop buffs, then but of course.
Once again, counterspelling isn't something the dragon or lich is wasting their turn doing. It's what their henchmen, summoned demons, or mind-controlled enemies are doing.
6. Spell books are dirt cheap. Counting pages is pretty much a a pointless endeavor as there is little difference between having one tome and two in your bag/extradimensional space/demiplane.
Spellbooks are dirt cheap, yeah, and 3 pounds each, right Mr. Seven Strength Wizard? And flammable. And not usually waterproof. And pickpocket-able.
7. I'm assuming by unique weakness you mean Protection from.../Magic Circle; it comes up from time to time.
Yeah, that and how long it takes to summon the eidolon. And dismissal. And banishment. Does that sound like specific knowledge that not all enemies would know? Maybe. Then again, all your player characters just instinctively know that they need silver to take on werewolves. Oh, that's common knowledge but preparing to deal with an infamous summoner's eidolon is OOC meta-gaming? Nice try, Mr. Summoner Player. Turns out when you're a famous adventurer, the bad guys do their homework. They know to attack you at night when it takes 10 rounds (or a wasted 2nd level spell slot) to summon your eidolon. Oh, and when you try to cast Summon Eidolon, see #3 and #5 above.
8. Never enforced that as all it would do is mean that everyone would spend the handful of gold to get a holy symbol tattoo and negate the problem. Enforcing it just forced you into a particular flavor that everyone might not like.
Whoa now, having something tattooed on you doesn't count as having it available to use for spells. That's like saying a wizard can substitute a wicked tattoo of his arcane focus staff on his butt cheek in place of his actual arcane focus staff. Would you let a player get away with that? Geez, I'm starting to see why you guys think casters are overpowered...
9. I tend to forget about cover bonuses to reflex, but I feel it very rarely comes up, at least in games I've ran/played in. I really should try to remember it though.
Seriously, these were just rules I plucked out of my recent memory. There's tons of stuff in the rules to help keep casters on their toes. But, as the tone of your arguments reinforces, they're often really situational, annoying, and easily forgotten. But hey, if martial/caster disparity is really that big a deal, maybe it's time to start enforcing them.
|
|
So to rein casters in from godlike to just really overpowered you just have to remember to use all of the convoluted rules centered around spellcasting until they reach midlevels and literally all of those things are easily overcome. Got it.
Man, I'm getting the feeling that most of you grew up with really mediocre DMs. Almost everything I mentioned scales easily with the level of the campaign. You go from bandits readying spell disruption actions to improved invisibility ranger snipers. That lowly thief who stole the spellbook out of your inn room at 1st level can just as easily steal your bag of holding when you're both 12th level. It goes on and on.
So yeah, if you can't be bothered to look up some of the rarer rules or use advanced tactics against your high-level players, you're going to have a bad time with casters.